Why would God include carnivory, parasitism, and disease in creation?

[Giuseppe_Gavino]

Could someone explain to me how things like, death, pain, and suffering have been automatically labeled intrinsically evil?

 

[tonyrey]

Could someone explain to me how things like, death, pain, and suffering have been automatically labeled intrinsically evil?

They are intrinsically evil only for the hedonist for whom the supreme good is pleasure. They become evil when they serve no useful purpose and prevent a person or animal from developing normally and enjoying life.

 

[Sair]

This is where we differ. I agree with Michael Ruse (a naturalist philosopher) in that the person who says it’s okay to torture children for fun is just as wrong as the one who says 2+2=5. The fact that people have different opinions about moral obligations doesn’t undermine their objective and absolute nature anymore than the differing opinions of physicists undermines an absolute physical reality.

Also, if these hypothetical persons have a different wiring in their brains, then is it really torture? So, how would that apply?

Apologies for butting in here, but although I agree with you that moral obligations transcend individual opinion, I disagree that they are necessarily objective, much less absolute. An objective moral obligation exists independently of subjective preference, and it’s unclear how any of our common human moral strictures - such as prohibitions against murder, rape, theft and so on - can exist in the absence of subjective preferences. If we had no subjective preferences, we would not care about being murdered or raped, or having our possessions stolen - these would just be things that happened in our immediate environment. They might be practically inconvenient, but they would not be morally reprehensible. I would be more inclined to consider our common moral strictures to be intersubjective, rather than objective.

As for absolute moral strictures, surely these must apply to all beings with the capacity to comprehend morality. At the risk of being accused of disrespect yet again, I raise the concept of vicarious atonement which lies at the centre of Christian doctrine. If anyone other than God offered his/her only child (and an innocent party) as a sacrifice for the moral transgressions of others, it would be considered monstrous. Yet somehow, because it’s God demanding and offering the sacrifice, and because Christian apologists from the Gospel writers onwards have insisted that Christ chose to redeem mankind from his own free will (as if he really had a choice in the matter), God somehow gets a free pass, and does not get labelled as a despot. This is ample evidence that the moral strictures by which Christians live, at least, are not absolute. They do not, apparently, apply to God.

 

[Serious]

I suppose there is some imprecision there, so let’s qualify “objective” with “absolute” in the moral argument.

Not sure what you mean here.

This is where we differ. I agree with Michael Ruse (a naturalist philosopher) in that the person who says it’s okay to torture children for fun is just as wrong as the one who says 2+2=5. The fact that people have different opinions about moral obligations doesn’t undermine their objective and absolute nature anymore than the differing opinions of physicists undermines an absolute physical reality.

The comparision is not good at all. The “2+2=4” comes from axioms. It is not an “absolute” statement, it is contingent upon the chosen axioms. In ethics we do not talk about “what is” type of problems, we talk about “ought” types.

Also, if these hypothetical persons have a different wiring in their brains, then is it really torture? So, how would that apply?

There are a few (very few) people who actually like to be tortured. We can say that they are insane, but that does not change the fact. Those people experience pain, and they like it. Remember, “absolute” would be applicable to everywhere and everyone.

Sair also gave an excellent (name removed by moderator)ut about God being the “special case” (and then this special treatment is always being denied). I could not have done it any better.

 

[Sair]

Not according to the statistics in countries like Sweden and the UK.

Which demonstrate what, exactly? That people go to church? So what?

False.

If that is so, it makes no difference what I believe - only what I do.

What are thoughts?

As you yourself said, they are electrical impulses in brains - those that process information gleaned from our senses, whether that is first-hand, from experience, or second-hand, from linguistic descriptions of the experiences of others.

Observing effects is different from detecting causes.

Yes. But the very fact that thoughts have effects in the observable, natural world indicates, according to the definition of ‘natural’ I offered earlier, that thoughts are amongst those phenomena we properly call ‘natural’.

Interpretations of reality differ. Why do you regard him as an authority?

Interpretations differ - definitions generally do not. Reality is that which actually obtains in the real world that exists. Can you point to a reality that does not exist?

Then you have no control over - and are not responsible for - your decisions and conclusions.

You are smuggling in an assumption that I am an entity separate from my physical instantiation.

Irrelevant. The issue is whether people without a religion are bothered about guilt.

Why should we not be so? Look around you - do you imagine that all people who lack religious belief are free of guilt for actions that do not correspond to their view of morality? The fact of the matter is that those of us who don’t hold to belief in an afterlife have to consider more fully the immediate consequences of our actions. We can’t merely pray for forgiveness - we have to seek it - and work for it - from those we have actually offended, here and now.

It is irrational to believe everything is material when realities like truth, integrity, evil, freedom, intentions, decisions and purposes cannot be observed with the senses.

You are merely reifying concepts here. Truth, integrity, evil, freedom, intention, decision and purpose certainly can be observed with our senses - how else would we define these things as states of affairs within the physical world?

A life without consequences is inconsequential.

When have I ever suggested that we live a life without consequences?

Which amounts to an arbitrary decision. The criminal’s view is as valid as the philanthropist’s.

Only if meaning is derived from individual interests in isolation from all other persons.

How do you ascertain the improbability of an afterlife? Do you have privileged insight into the nature of the mind?

A complete lack of evidence tends to point to improbability - if conscious minds persisted beyond death, we’d have discerned some evidence by now, by way of communication with the minds of deceased persons. Believe me, I would love to be able to talk with my late grandmother and aunt again, and it would be wonderful to imagine that I will one day walk my dog along a heavenly beach, but strangely enough, there is absolutely no evidence that allows me to hope for any of these outcomes. I have to content myself with accepting that I will never see my loved ones again, and cherish the memories I have of them.

Only according to Dawkins and his disciples… Moral decadence stems directly from the decision that life has whatever meaning we give it - which is a superb recipe for criminality.

How do you determine this, when so much evil has been justified by religious notions? As I’ve indicated before, when irrational ideology, whether religious or political, interferes with natural human empathy, we’re capable of cutting ourselves off from our fellows and committing all manner of atrocities against them.

 

[Sair]

Sair also gave an excellent (name removed by moderator)ut about God being the “special case” (and then this special treatment is always being denied). I could not have done it any better.

Wow - thank you. I was beginning to wonder if I was going slightly insane!

 

[Blacksword]

Could someone explain to me how things like, death, pain, and suffering have been automatically labeled intrinsically evil?

This. Exactly what I was about to write. There is a fundamental problem here in failing to define “evil” precisely. There is no reason to assume predation or disease are intrinsically evil, and in fact I reject the notion. Are posters actually suggesting enjoying a good steak is evil?

 

[Blacksword]

Apologies for butting in here, but although I agree with you that moral obligations transcend individual opinion, I disagree that they are necessarily objective, much less absolute. An objective moral obligation exists independently of subjective preference, and it’s unclear how any of our common human moral strictures - such as prohibitions against murder, rape, theft and so on - can exist in the absence of subjective preferences. If we had no subjective preferences, we would not care about being murdered or raped, or having our possessions stolen - these would just be things that happened in our immediate environment. They might be practically inconvenient, but they would not be morally reprehensible. I would be more inclined to consider our common moral strictures to be intersubjective, rather than objective.

As for absolute moral strictures, surely these must apply to all beings with the capacity to comprehend morality. At the risk of being accused of disrespect yet again, I raise the concept of vicarious atonement which lies at the centre of Christian doctrine. If anyone other than God offered his/her only child (and an innocent party) as a sacrifice for the moral transgressions of others, it would be considered monstrous. Yet somehow, because it’s God demanding and offering the sacrifice, and because Christian apologists from the Gospel writers onwards have insisted that Christ chose to redeem mankind from his own free will (as if he really had a choice in the matter), God somehow gets a free pass, and does not get labelled as a despot. This is ample evidence that the moral strictures by which Christians live, at least, are not absolute. They do not, apparently, apply to God.

Sigh…If someone sacrifices their own life to save another’s, is that “monstrous”? You present the atonement in a biased, crude, and incomplete manner so as to support your contention. But continuing to pretend Christ did not have free will in the matter, right up to the end, doesn’t make it so. Nobody would call, for instance, one soldier freely giving up his own life to save his companions monstrous. In fact, most would readily call it an act of supreme love, bravery, and heroism.

 

[punkforchrist]

Sair:

Apologies for butting in here

I don’t consider it butting in. This is a public forum and your opinions are welcome.

but although I agree with you that moral obligations transcend individual opinion, I disagree that they are necessarily objective, much less absolute. An objective moral obligation exists independently of subjective preference, and it’s unclear how any of our common human moral strictures - such as prohibitions against murder, rape, theft and so on - can exist in the absence of subjective preferences. . . .

Suppose nobody exists for which these moral obligations would apply. It would still be true at that state of affairs that if there were such persons, then they would be obligated to do/not do X.

As for absolute moral strictures, surely these must apply to all beings with the capacity to comprehend morality. At the risk of being accused of disrespect yet again, I raise the concept of vicarious atonement which lies at the centre of Christian doctrine. If anyone other than God offered his/her only child (and an innocent party) as a sacrifice for the moral transgressions of others, it would be considered monstrous. Yet somehow, because it’s God demanding and offering the sacrifice, and because Christian apologists from the Gospel writers onwards have insisted that Christ chose to redeem mankind from his own free will (as if he really had a choice in the matter), God somehow gets a free pass, and does not get labelled as a despot. This is ample evidence that the moral strictures by which Christians live, at least, are not absolute. They do not, apparently, apply to God.

Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that you’re correct in your assessment of Christian ethics. At the very most, this would only imply that Christian ethics ought to be revised or reconsidered. It would not imply that moral obligations are not grounded in an absolute, transcendent and personal source (God).

Now, the difference between God sacrificing himself in the person of Christ and a parent sacrificing his/her child, is that God has power over life and death. Ordinary parents do not. God raised Jesus from the dead, vindicating him. Moreover, Jesus did freely sacrifice himself: “No one takes [my life] from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again.” (John 10:18).

 

[punkforchrist]

Serious:

Not sure what you mean here.

I mean we can revise the argument’s second premise with: there is an objective and absolute moral law.

The comparision is not good at all. The “2+2=4” comes from axioms. It is not an “absolute” statement, it is contingent upon the chosen axioms. In ethics we do not talk about “what is” type of problems, we talk about “ought” types.

Is 2+2=4 possibly false?

There are a few (very few) people who actually like to be tortured. We can say that they are insane, but that does not change the fact. Those people experience pain, and they like it. Remember, “absolute” would be applicable to everywhere and everyone.

I’m not sure how masochism is supposed to undermine the absolute nature of morality. One could easily bite the bullet and say, “if they want to be tortured, then it’s not really torture; so it’s okay.” However, I don’t think we have to go even that far. The fact that a masochist likes being tortured doesn’t mean their behavior is morally neutral, much less good. Moral obligations being absolute is a metaphysical claim. The recognition of these moral obligations is an epistemological matter.

 

[tonyrey]

Not according to the statistics in countries like Sweden and the UK.

That the percentage of atheists has increased considerably…

If that is so, it makes no difference what I believe - only what I do.

There is such a thing as wilful disbelief.

What are thoughts?

As you yourself said, they are electrical impulses in brains - those that process information gleaned from our senses, whether that is first-hand, from experience, or second-hand, from linguistic descriptions of the experiences of others.

That hypothesis is self-destructive because it implies that hypotheses have physical causes and are derived from non-rational processes.

Observing effects is different from detecting causes.

Yes. But the very fact that thoughts have effects in the observable, natural world indicates, according to the definition of ‘natural’ I offered earlier, that thoughts are amongst those phenomena we properly call ‘natural’.

The fallacy of post hoc propter hoc.

Interpretations differ - definitions generally do not. Reality is that which actually obtains in the real world that exists. Can you point to a reality that does not exist?

Irrelevant. Why do you regard him as an authority?

Then you have no control over - and are not responsible for - your decisions and conclusions.

You are smuggling in an assumption that I am an entity separate from my physical instantiation.

No assumption whatsoever. If you are a solely physical organism - as you claim to be - all your decisions and conclusions have physical causes…

The issue is whether people without a religion are bothered about guilt.

Why should we not be so? Look around you - do you imagine that all people who lack religious belief are free of guilt for actions that do not correspond to their view of morality? The fact of the matter is that those of us who don’t hold to belief in an afterlife have to consider more fully the immediate consequences of our actions.

1. Those who believe in an afterlife don’t spend much of their time thinking of the eternal consequences of their actions.
2. Those who don’t believe in an afterlife can - often do - regard morality as a human convention they can ignore with impunity.

We can’t merely pray for forgiveness - we have to seek it - and work for it - from those we have actually offended, here and now.

It is a distortion of Christianity to assert that forgiveness is granted merely as a result of prayer. “Forgive us **as **we forgive…” and that entails action.

It is irrational to believe everything is material when realities like truth, integrity, evil, freedom, intentions, decisions and purposes cannot be observed with the senses.

You are merely reifying concepts here. Truth, integrity, evil, freedom, intention, decision and purpose certainly can be observed with our senses…

Then describe them entirely in physical terms.

… how else would we define these things as states of affairs within the physical world?

They exist entirely in the mind. Truth, for example, is correspondence between belief and reality - which is intangible and unobservable by the senses.

A life without consequences is inconsequential.

When have I ever suggested that we live a life without consequences?

You haven’t. But a life which finally **leads to nothing **is indisputably inconsequential.

Which amounts to an arbitrary decision. The criminal’s view is as valid as the philanthropist’s.

Only if meaning is derived from individual interests in isolation from all other persons.

Many choose to ignore the interests of others because they believe their crimes will be undetected.

How do you ascertain the improbability of an afterlife? Do you have privileged insight into the nature of the mind?

A complete lack of evidence tends to point to improbability - if conscious minds persisted beyond death, we’d have discerned some evidence by now, by way of communication with the minds of deceased persons. Believe me, I would love to be able to talk with my late grandmother and aunt again, and it would be wonderful to imagine that I will one day walk my dog along a heavenly beach, but strangely enough, there is absolutely no evidence that allows me to hope for any of these outcomes. I have to content myself with accepting that I will never see my loved ones again, and cherish the memories I have of them.

Your dogmatism stems from the assumption that only material objects exist and the failure to recognise the power of the mind. There is evidence of messages from the dead. The evidence of Christ’s Resurrection and the survival of His Church for two thousand years extending to one third of the world’s population are ample justification for belief in His teaching - in contrast with the absurdity of materialism which claims that persons are composed of nothing but purposeless particles.

Only according to Dawkins and his disciples… Moral decadence stems directly from the decision that life has whatever meaning we give it - which is a superb recipe for criminality.

How do you determine this, when so much evil has been justified by religious notions? As I’ve indicated before, when irrational ideology, whether religious or political, interferes with natural human empathy, we’re capable of cutting ourselves off from our fellows and committing all manner of atrocities against them.

Natural human empathy is a myth when there are so many individuals who put the life of a pet before the life of a person… It is certainly a rational ideology for an egoist.

 

[Poseidon]

This. Exactly what I was about to write. There is a fundamental problem here in failing to define “evil” precisely. There is no reason to assume predation or disease are intrinsically evil, and in fact I reject the notion. Are posters actually suggesting enjoying a good steak is evil?

No, but AIDS, ebola, smallpox, cancer, hemophilia, and dysentery certainly are evil - the bacteria/viruses themselves aren’t evil, but the effects they have on people are evil (“bad” would be a better word here). They exist, and therefore they must have been created by God. So why would God create them?

 

[Geremia]

Why would God design some animals to painfully kill and eat others? Why would he design animals to live inside and on other animals and leech their nutrients until they die slowly and painfully? Why would he create killer viruses and bacteria that cause so much death and pain?

Natural evil exists as a consequence of Adam’s sin.

 

[Bradski]

Moral decadence stems directly from the decision that life has whatever meaning we give it - which is a superb recipe for criminality.

There’s a corollary.

When someone who doesn’t believe in God does something that is right, he does it because he believes it to be right. He make take advice from people whose opinions he values and it may have taken him some time to reach the conclusion that his actions are correct, but he takes personal responsibility for his actions.

He doesn’t do the right thing just because he has been told that it’s right (although he may well have been told so). He doesn’t do it because he’s been told that someone will know if he does the wrong thing either. He does the right thing whether someone is watching or not.

Imagine an office in which the workers know there are close circuit TVs operating. There is no petty stealing but can you guarantee they are all trustworthy? If you personally do something that we both agree is morally correct, how do I know that you are doing it simply because you have been told that it’s the morally correct thing to do as opposed reaching that conclusion yourself?

 

[tonyrey]

Moral decadence stems directly from the decision that life has whatever meaning we give it - which is a superb recipe for criminality.

When someone who believes in God does something that is right, he ** also** does it because he believes it to be right and **not only **because he believes in God.
Moreover he has a good reason for his belief that something is right whereas someone who doesn’t believe in God has none.

He doesn’t do the right thing just because he has been told that it’s right (although he may well have been told so).

Ditto.

He doesn’t do it because he’s been told that someone will know if he does the wrong thing either. He does the right thing whether someone is watching or not.

Ditto.

Imagine an office in which the workers know there are close circuit TVs operating. There is no petty stealing but can you guarantee they are all trustworthy? If you personally do something that we both agree is morally correct, how do I know that you are doing it simply because you have been told that it’s the morally correct thing to do as opposed reaching that conclusion yourself?

You are making the false assumption that none of those who believe in God reach the conclusion themselves…

You haven’t explained why those who don’t believe in God believe some things are right and other things wrong. **How **did they learn to distinguish good from evil? By chance?

 

[Bradski]

When someone who believes in God does something that is right, he ** also** does it because he believes it to be right and **not merely **because he believes in God.

You’re saying that you could take God out of the equation and you’d still be able to reach a moral decision. You would do it because you believed it to be right AND it would be what God would want. That’s reasonable.

You are making the false assumption that none of those who believe in God reach the conclusion themselves…

You could show that I was wrong by telling me if you have ever reached a decision that you considered morally correct that was counter to what God would approve.

You have not explained why those who don’t believe in God believe some things are right and others wrong…

Isn’t this what you’re trying to explain to me? You can believe something to be morally right (it’s your decision) AND believe it’s God’s will. I go through the same process as you without having to believe in God. You must reach your decision independently of God (or it’s not your decision) and I do the same.

 

[tonyrey]

When someone who believes in God does something that is right, he ** also**

Thank you.

You are making the false assumption that none of those who believe in God reach the conclusion themselves…

You could show that I was wrong by telling me if you have ever reached a decision that you considered morally correct that was counter to what God would approve.

Could you show that I was wrong by telling me if you have ever reached a decision you considered morally correct that was counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

You have not explained why those who don’t believe in God believe some things are right and others wrong…

Isn’t this what you’re trying to explain to me? You can believe something to be morally right (it’s your decision) AND believe it’s God’s will. I go through the same process as you without having to believe in God. You must reach your decision independently of God (or it’s not your decision) and I do the same.

I don’t go through the same process because I believe in Design and you don’t.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t go through the same process because I believe in Design and you don’t.

I’m not sure what your belief in design has to do with moral questions. Could you expand on that for me?

But design implies God and if design (somehow) forms part of your decision making process, then surely you’re not making your decision AND believing in God. God is part of the decision making process and it’s not a decision independent of Him.

 

[Serious]

I mean we can revise the argument’s second premise with: there is an objective and absolute moral law.

While retaining the real meaning of “objective” and absolute"?

Is 2+2=4 possibly false?

Of course. Non-mathematicians think that mathematical truths are absolute. They are not, they are contingent upon the selection of certian axioms (which are arbitrary) and a language to manipulate them. The only requirement is that the axioms should not lead to contradictions. Every mathematical theorem is formulated as: “IF xxxxx THEN yyyyy”.

I’m not sure how masochism is supposed to undermine the absolute nature of morality. One could easily bite the bullet and say, “if they want to be tortured, then it’s not really torture; so it’s okay.” However, I don’t think we have to go even that far. The fact that a masochist likes being tortured doesn’t mean their behavior is morally neutral, much less good.

Why not? Of course I already know your answer, I have seen it many times. I disagree. If someone consents to an act, which does not hurt others, then this act is no one else’s business - it is morally neutral. This disagreement cannot be resolved.

Moral obligations being absolute is a metaphysical claim. The recognition of these moral obligations is an epistemological matter.

Since metaphysics is merely a set of empty musings (mostly nonsensical), I could not care less about it. Epistemology is what counts.

 

[Bradski]

Could you show that I was wrong by telling me if you have ever reached a decision you considered morally correct that was counter to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Sorry, I missed this bit.

Your position is that morality comes from God. If you then suggest that you can make moral decisions independently and without reference to God, then you must be able to offer an example where that is obviously the case otherwise it’s unverifiable.

I’m not claiming that morality comes from the Declaration of Human Rights. I am not suggesting that I can make moral decisions independently and without reference to it. So whether I agree with all aspects of that document or not is moot.

And back on topic: why aren’t all animals vegetarians?